...to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.Do you agree? The history of the last fifty years has been a long, long trail of appeasement, capitulation and death. "In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled... Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite..." Do you agree? If not, why not?
From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.
Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented - but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.
Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in Nine-Eleven is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.
LINKS: Radio Live
Full text of the State of the Union address (Part 2) - Chicago Tribune
Long, long trail of appeasement, capitulation and death - Not PC (Sept 11, 2006)
RELATED: War, Religion, Politics-World, Politics-US
4 comments:
PC, off topic, but re Lindsay Perigo, I listened to his programme this morning. Best laugh of the day were his closing comments:
"Well, that's it for today. It's been a bloody awful day - and most of you were stupid!"
I'm still chuckling! :)
PC, I agree al-Qeada and it's offshoots have got to be fought, but...
All sorts of factors have informed the West's interaction with the Arab world since WW2 and any historical event has got to be looked at in it's immediate context to make any real sense. To characterise the entire period as a long war against the virtuous West by Evil Muslims seems to me to be a little simplistic.
Furthermore, assuming that we are at war, it's a different sort of war. It's notable that all of the successes Bush mentioned (rightly so), were achieved by intelligence/police methods. Charging into various "evil" regimes with all guns blazing may look like an attractive stratedgy to some, but as Iraq has proven, it causes far more problems than it solves.
Finally, a lot of American libertarian/conservative sources have noted the tendency for government power to expand under cover of war. Dosen't that aspect bother you?
Sorry, i know this dosen't really answer your question. But I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts on these points.
PC,
Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world and the West (especially USA), as the most free and therefore most anti-Islamic part of the rest of the world, is thus at war with Islam, even if it chooses to ignore it.
DM, it's one of the few roles of govt to take down external threats to the liberty of its citizens - and that means going to war against countries that provide safe haven to those who would do harm to us and destroy our liberty.
Yes, govt spending grows during a time of war but with a proper constitution and a culture that supports it ("a republic, madam, if you can keep it"), the govt should not grow permanently (unless a new aspect of the defense forces not previously considered was being added).
Yes, places as dark as Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries can become problematic areas for, to note the culture issues again, if the culture of the people conquered is hostile to liberty it will take a while to alter those views (minds can't be forced) by having them live in a society with western institutions without western democracy (to stop them electing dictators). You might like to read PC's archives and find a post which refers to a speech entitled "No subsitute for victory" (or similar) as this discusses how the approach followed in Japan should be followed in the Middle East.
These issues you raise may be problems, but these problems don't take away from the fact that we must take down the people who seeks to harm us and destroy our freedom - and the states that support them.
BTW, the key problem with Iraq is Bush et al's refusal to identify the ideological, financial and technical support provided to the insurgency by Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria and Saudi Arabia) and to meaningfully confront and take out the regime(s) responsible.
More Moslems will be continued to be killed by other Moslems than Westerns.
The West is/was in more of a cross fire. Some of our home grown nuts will blow themselves up for sure. Generally though the war is between radical Islam and Moslem civilization through out the Middle East.
Algeria during the 1990s is a good example of this.
“The Algerian Civil War was an armed conflict between the Algerian government and various Islamist rebel groups which began in 1991. It is estimated to have cost between 150,000 and 200,000 lives”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
Post a Comment